Ushaben Maheshbhai Rana vs State Of Gujarat Thro Chief Secretary on 13 March, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Ushaben Maheshbhai Rana vs State Of Gujarat Thro Chief Secretary on 13 March, 2018

Bench: A.S. Supehia

         C/SCA/3761/2012                                        JUDGMENT




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3761 of 2012


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA                       Sd/-

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to              NO
      see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          NO

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the         NO
      judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law         NO
      as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
      order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                      USHABEN MAHESHBHAI RANA
                               Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT THRO CHIEF SECRETARY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER(2104) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MS MONALI H BHATT(2758) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                               Date : 13/03/2018

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

(1) Learned advocate is permitted to amend the prayer clause. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

Page 1 of 6

C/SCA/3761/2012 JUDGMENT (2) In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside the orders dated 03.11.2007,05.08.2010 and 21.12.2011 and also seeks direction to the respondent authorities to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis in place of her deceased husband.

(3) The husband of the petitioner was working as peon with respondent no.2 at their office at Vadodara since 15.12.1983, and he died on 20.02.2007 while service leaving behind the petitioner and two sons. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband. The respondent No.2 informed the petitioner to make an application for compassionate appointment within a period of 90 days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 05.03.2007 to the Gujarat Subordinate Civil Services Selection Board requesting to grant her compassionate appointment. A proforma application was also sent with the aforesaid application. All the necessary documents were also thereafter sent to the concerned authorities as called for. By the letter dated 22.08.2007 the petitioner was called for to submit the relevant documents, which were also submitted before the authorities. After Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/3761/2012 JUDGMENT various correspondences, inter se between the authorities and the petitioner, her case was rejected vide letter dated 05.08.2010.

(4) The aforesaid letter was communicated to the petitioner, in view of the communication dated 13.01.2009, written by the respondent no.1 to the Gujarat Subordinate Civil Services Selection Board clarifying that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment, since, she is drawing pension income of Rs.3,855/ as well as monthly interest of Rs.2,696/ on the amount of Rs.4,04,416/, which she has received after the death of her husband.

(5) By the another communication dated 21.12.2011, written by the Superintending Engineer of the respondent No.2, the petitioner is informed that her case for compassionate appointment is not approved by the Gujarat Subordinate Civil Services Selection Board, hence, she cannot be granted the compassionate appointment, in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.

(6) Learned Advocate Mr.Iyer appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the pension income received by the family of the deceased cannot be considered for the purpose of grant of Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/3761/2012 JUDGMENT compassionate appointment. He has stated that as per the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 the State Government itself clarified that no income criteria shall be applicable for grant of compassionate appointment as per clause2 of sub clause (1) of the G.R. Dated 10.03.2000 (7) Learned Advocate has also placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, and Ors. reported 2005 SCC (L&S), 590 and in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, for the preposition of law, that the benefits accrued to the family members of the deceased employee or to the legal representatives after his death cannot be considered for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

(8) In the affidavit in reply dated 24.09.2012,the respondent no.2 has specifically stated that the case of the petitioner is rejected because she was getting the monthly pension amount of Rs.3,855/ and an interest of amount Rs.2,696/. It is also stated that as per Clause6 of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, the case of compassionate appointment to the family members of the deceased employee which were rejected earlier will not be considered under the present scheme.

Page 4 of 6

C/SCA/3761/2012 JUDGMENT (9) In the present writ petition, the impugned orders suggest that the case of the petitioner for entitlement of the compassionate appointment is solely rejected on the ground of pension income as well as the income which is derived from the terminal benefits of the deceased employee i.e. her husband. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) has specifically held in Paragraph No.21 as under: "(21) Referring to SAIL case, the High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the Bank that the respondents' family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground."

(10) In the case of Govind Prakash Verma, (supra) the Supreme Court has specifically observed that the terminal benefits received by the widow and the family pension could not be taken into account for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Thus, the terminal benefits which are received by the petitioner after the death of her husband are to be ignored for the purpose of compassionate appointment. In view of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of compassionate appointment. The Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/3761/2012 JUDGMENT petitioner shall be offered a suitable post, as envisaged in the scheme of compassionate appointment in case she fulfills all the criteria of the same.

(11) The petition is allowed accordingly. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) RINKU Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court